- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Articolo "Libertà di ricerca, licenze libere e sistemi d’intelligenza artificiale"
by Marco Ciurcina Dec. 16, 2023

Dec. 16, 2023

Condivido un mio articolo sul tema in oggetto, pubblicato qualche settimana orsono (forse è d'interesse per qualcuno in lista) https://www.rivisteweb.it/doi/10.53227/108473 Abstract After years in which many developments in artificial intelligence systems were the outcome of scientific research and were made available under free licences, the recent success of some generative artificial intelligence systems, which were developed using large computing capacities and quantities of data, leads to the question whether conditions are emerging in which a few players will be able to provide artificial intelligence systems, concentrating economic (but not only) power. But the development of artificial intelligence systems continues. Policies are therefore useful that, by exploiting the regulatory framework (favourable to the development of transparent systems and to the scientific research), make data and computing resources available to researchers in order to foster the free availability, study and understanding of artificial intelligence systems.To achieve this, it is certainly useful to make use of the methods already adopted for free software (which, on the one hand, have led to the generation of digital commons and, on the other, are usefully employed by companies). But this is not enough: artificial intelligence systems do not consist of software alone and require computing and data resources. It is supportive of the European regulatory framework which allows it to adopt policies that enhance the scientific research in the development of artificial intelligence systems thus balancing fundamental rights with conflicting objectives: freedom of enterprise, freedom of scientific research and protection of personal data. L'articolo è in italiano. m.c.

1 0

How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST)
by Luigi Scorca Dec. 16, 2023

Dec. 16, 2023

https://data.stanford.edu/hcmst?fbclid=IwAR2uBvRZ9qf6CSy70BBOUFxoEQuD070nrc… Interessante come l'evoluzione sia stata velocissima..

1 0

EU updates product liability regime to include, software, Artificial Intelligence
by maurizio lana Dec. 15, 2023

Dec. 15, 2023

spesso tra le ragioni istitutive dell'UE quella della creazione del "mercato unico" viene dismissed come una svendita delle idealità a vantaggio della ragione economica. ma qui (product liability regime includes software, Artificial Intelligence) si vede che nell'Antropocene i prodotti non sono giusto delle 'inerti pietre grigie' ma concorrono a dare forma all'ambiente umano e regolare i prodotti significa prendere posizione sui principi. (ok ho scritto Antropocene ma potevo anche dire con intento puramente descrittivo "società del capitalismo"). questo della responsabilità civile dei product manufacturers e degli economic operators di sistemi di IA era un principio già espresso in pressoché tutti i precedenti documenti normativi e legislativi dell'UE che trattavano di IA. a me pare una buona cosa perché esclude agency dei sistemi di IA e di conseguenza impedisce quelle fantasiose cose come responsabilità del sistema intelligente (?). Maurizio Il 15/12/23 12:00, Daniela Tafani <daniela.tafani(a)unipi.it> ha scritto: > Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 13:20:57 +0000 > From: Daniela Tafani<daniela.tafani(a)unipi.it> > To:"nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it" <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > Subject: [nexa] EU updates product liability regime to include > software, Artificial Intelligence > > EU updates product liability regime to include software, Artificial Intelligence > By Luca Bertuzzi | > > EU policymakers reached a political agreement on Thursday (14 December) on legislation to bring the bloc’s product liability regime in line with technological developments, notably covering digital products like software, which includes Artificial Intelligence. > > The Product Liability Directive (PLD) provides people who have suffered material damage from a defective product with the legal basis to sue the relevant economic operators and seek compensation. > > The product manufacturers will be liable for defectiveness resulting from a component under its control, which might be tangible, intangible, or a related service, like the traffic data of a navigation system. > > Defectiveness > A product is deemed defective when it does not provide the safety a person is entitled to expect based on the reasonable foreseeable use, legal requirements, and the specific needs of the group of users for whom the product is intended. > > One of the elements considered when assessing defectiveness is the capacity of the product to continue to learn and acquire new features or knowledge; wording meant to cover Artificial Intelligence technology based on machine learning techniques. > > Damages > Under the PLD, material damage includes death, personal injury, psychological harm, and destruction of property. At the same time, national liability regimes might still regulate compensation for non-material damages, such as those resulting from discrimination. > > The concept of damage also includes the loss or corruption of data that is not used exclusively for professional purposes. The European Parliament suggested introducing a threshold for the value of the data to qualify as a material loss, but this idea was rejected in the talks with the Council. > > Disclosure of evidence > The PLD introduces the possibility for claimants who have presented sufficient evidence to request that a national court mandates the defendant disclose the evidence at its disposal as long as necessary and proportionate. > > Conversely, the Parliament proposed allowing the defendant to ask for the disclosure of evidence at the disposal of the claimant under the same conditions. > > The disclosing party might request the national court to take the necessary measures to protect the confidentiality of disclosed information including trade secrets. > > Burden of proof > Claimants must prove the product’s defectiveness, the damage suffered, and the causal link between the two. However, under certain conditions, the defectiveness of the product will be assumed, and it will be on the defendant to disprove it. > > The conditions include cases where the defendant fails to disclose relevant evidence, the claimant demonstrates that the product does not comply with mandatory product safety requirements, or an obvious malfunction causes the damage. > > The defectiveness is also presumed in cases where the claimant faces excessive difficulties due to technical or scientific complexity to prove the defectiveness of the product or the causal link, or the claimant proves that it is likely that the product is defective or that there is a causal link. > > Open source software > The Directive will not apply to free and open-source software developed or supplied outside a commercial activity. The liability rules apply when the software is supplied in exchange for a price or personal data used for anything other than improving the software’s security or compatibility. > > Compensation fund > The European Parliament included the possibility of EU countries using existing or new national sectorial compensation schemes for victims of defective products who fail to obtain compensation because the economic operator is insolvent or no longer exists. > > The text specifies that the member states should preferably avoid funding the schemes with public money. > > Liability exemption > The Parliament pushed a liability exemption for manufacturers of software components to a defective product that were micro or small enterprises when they placed that software in the market, provided that another economic operator is liable. > > However, this measure was left for contractual arrangements between the small company and the other party. > > Right of recourse > Parliamentarians included the principle that whenever more than one economic operator is deemed liable for the same damage and is ordered to pay compensation, each one will have the right of recourse against the others. > > Risk development > The Council added the possibility for EU countries to maintain existing measures in their legal systems that make economic operators liable even if they can prove that they could not know the product’s defectiveness based on the state of scientific and technical knowledge. > > Limitation periods > Claimants will have three years to initiate proceedings following the damage. The right for an injured person to seek compensation under this directive expires after ten years, except for latent injuries that are slow to manifest, for which the timeframe is 25 years. > > Timeline > The PLD will apply to all products placed on the EU market 24 months after it enters into force. EU countries will have until then to transpose the directive into national law. > > [Edited by Zoran Radosavljevic] > > L'articolo è in questo luogo occhiuto: > https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/eu-updates-product-liability-… > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 14:40:08 +0000 > From: Daniela Tafani<daniela.tafani(a)unipi.it> > To:"nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it" <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > Subject: [nexa] A proposito di prodotti pericolosi e non funzionanti: > Tesla recalls nearly all 2 million of its vehicles on US roads > Message-ID:<4b954e94abc14570919bcb2e9f94bae4(a)unipi.it> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > Tesla recalls nearly all 2 million of its vehicles on US roads > Chris Isidore, CNN > > Tesla is recalling nearly all 2 million of its cars on US roads to limit the use of its Autopilot feature following a two-year probe by US safety regulators of roughly 1,000 crashes in which the feature was engaged. > > The limitations on Autopilot serve as a blow to Tesla’s efforts to market its vehicles to buyers willing to pay extra to have their cars do the driving for them. > > The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said the Autopilot system can give drivers a false sense of security and be easily misused in certain dangerous situations when a Tesla’s technology may be unable to safely navigate the road. The over-the-air software update will give Tesla drivers more warnings when they are not paying attention to the road while the Autopilot’s “Autosteer” function is turned on. Those notifications will remind drivers to keep their hands on the wheel and pay attention to the road, according to a statement from NHTSA > > After the recall, Teslas with Autosteer turned on will more routinely check on the driver’s attention level – and may disengage the feature – when the software determines the driver isn’t paying attention, when the car is approaching traffic controls, or when it’s off the highway when Autosteer alone isn’t sufficient to drive the car. > > The recall was disclosed in a letter to Tesla posted by NHTSA, which said that Tesla had agreed to the software update starting on Tuesday that will limit the use of the Autosteer feature if a driver repeatedly fails to demonstrate he or she is ready to resume control of the car while the feature is on > Tesla has been pushing its driver-assist features, including Autopilot and what it calls “Full Self Driving,” which Tesla has insisted make driving safer than cars operated exclusively by humans. But NHTSA has been studying reports of accidents involving Autopilot and its Autosteer function for more than two years. > > The recall comes two days after a detailed investigation was published by the Washington Post that found at least eight serious accidents, including some fatalities, in which the the Autopilot feature should not have been engaged in the first place. > > Tesla’s owners manuals say: “Autosteer is intended for use only on highways and limited-access roads with a fully attentive driver.” But the company has pushed the idea that its driver assist features allow the cars to safely make most driving decisions even away from those roads. > > A NHTSA investigation, however, has found numerous accidents over the past several years that suggest that these features do not live up to their names of Autopilot and Full Self Driving. > > The safety regulator in its letter to Tesla said “in certain circumstances when Autosteer is engaged, the prominence and scope of the feature’s controls may not be sufficient to prevent driver misuse [of the feature.]” It said that when drivers are not fully engaged and ready to take control of the car “there may be an increased risk of a crash.” > > In addition to the software updates, Tesla will mail letters to car owners notifying them of the change. > A history of Autopilot issues > > This is not the first time that NHTSA has pushed Tesla to make changes to its Autopilot or Full Self Driving features after finding the features posed safety problems. > > In February, Tesla recalled all 363,000 US vehicles then on the road with its FSD feature after finding cars operating with the feature would violate traffic laws, including “traveling straight through an intersection while in a turn-only lane, entering a stop sign-controlled intersection without coming to a complete stop, or proceeding into an intersection during a steady yellow traffic signal without due caution.” > > And NHTSA and the National Transportation Safety Board have been investigating crashes involving Tesla vehicles using the various driver assist features, including a series of crashes into emergency vehicles on the scene of other accidents. > > Tesla is not the only automaker offering driver assist features marketed as “self-driving.” And it is not the only one to run into safety problems. Recently General Motors’ Cruise unit suspended its driverless taxi service nationwide after California authorities suspended its ability to operate the system there after an accident. > > But, because it markets the names Autopilot and Full Self Driving, Tesla has made a greater emphasis than competitors on self-driving. It charges buyers $6,000 for cars with what it calls “enhanced Autopilot.” and $12,000 for the FSD feature. > > Many who paid extra for those features have told CNN they think the features are not worth the extra money. But while the features have found support among other owners, the reports of serious accidents and deaths by police and safety regulators could hurt Tesla’s efforts to market the cars and their expensive features. > Autopilot’s importance to Tesla > > Tesla is already the most valuable automaker in the world, by far, despite having a fraction of the sales of many established automakers such as Toyota, Volkswagen, General Motors, Ford and Stellantis. > > Investors are betting on projections of future sales growth as well as the value of its software in making those stock valuations. CEO Elon Musk has said the company’s investment in artificial intelligence and its use in both self-driving vehicles as well as its plans for humanoid robots are a key to its current and future value. > > “In the long term, I think, has the potential to make Tesla the most valuable company in the world by far,” Musk said in October on a call with Wall Street analysts. “If you have fully autonomous cars at scale and fully autonomous humanoid robots that are truly useful, it’s not clear what the limit is.” > > Tesla’s stock fell slightly Wednesday. > > https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/13/tech/tesla-recall-autopilot/index.html > > Qui il Safety Call Report: > https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/RCLRPT-23V838-8276.PDF > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > ------------------------------ > > End of nexa Digest, Vol 176, Issue 18 > ************************************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ the knowledge gap between rich and poor is widening witten & bainbridge, how to build a digital library ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maurizio Lana Università del Piemonte Orientale Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici Piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli

1 0

A proposito di prodotti pericolosi e non funzionanti: Tesla recalls nearly all 2 million of its vehicles on US roads
by Daniela Tafani Dec. 14, 2023

Dec. 14, 2023

Tesla recalls nearly all 2 million of its vehicles on US roads Chris Isidore, CNN Tesla is recalling nearly all 2 million of its cars on US roads to limit the use of its Autopilot feature following a two-year probe by US safety regulators of roughly 1,000 crashes in which the feature was engaged. The limitations on Autopilot serve as a blow to Tesla’s efforts to market its vehicles to buyers willing to pay extra to have their cars do the driving for them. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said the Autopilot system can give drivers a false sense of security and be easily misused in certain dangerous situations when a Tesla’s technology may be unable to safely navigate the road. The over-the-air software update will give Tesla drivers more warnings when they are not paying attention to the road while the Autopilot’s “Autosteer” function is turned on. Those notifications will remind drivers to keep their hands on the wheel and pay attention to the road, according to a statement from NHTSA After the recall, Teslas with Autosteer turned on will more routinely check on the driver’s attention level – and may disengage the feature – when the software determines the driver isn’t paying attention, when the car is approaching traffic controls, or when it’s off the highway when Autosteer alone isn’t sufficient to drive the car. The recall was disclosed in a letter to Tesla posted by NHTSA, which said that Tesla had agreed to the software update starting on Tuesday that will limit the use of the Autosteer feature if a driver repeatedly fails to demonstrate he or she is ready to resume control of the car while the feature is on Tesla has been pushing its driver-assist features, including Autopilot and what it calls “Full Self Driving,” which Tesla has insisted make driving safer than cars operated exclusively by humans. But NHTSA has been studying reports of accidents involving Autopilot and its Autosteer function for more than two years. The recall comes two days after a detailed investigation was published by the Washington Post that found at least eight serious accidents, including some fatalities, in which the the Autopilot feature should not have been engaged in the first place. Tesla’s owners manuals say: “Autosteer is intended for use only on highways and limited-access roads with a fully attentive driver.” But the company has pushed the idea that its driver assist features allow the cars to safely make most driving decisions even away from those roads. A NHTSA investigation, however, has found numerous accidents over the past several years that suggest that these features do not live up to their names of Autopilot and Full Self Driving. The safety regulator in its letter to Tesla said “in certain circumstances when Autosteer is engaged, the prominence and scope of the feature’s controls may not be sufficient to prevent driver misuse [of the feature.]” It said that when drivers are not fully engaged and ready to take control of the car “there may be an increased risk of a crash.” In addition to the software updates, Tesla will mail letters to car owners notifying them of the change. A history of Autopilot issues This is not the first time that NHTSA has pushed Tesla to make changes to its Autopilot or Full Self Driving features after finding the features posed safety problems. In February, Tesla recalled all 363,000 US vehicles then on the road with its FSD feature after finding cars operating with the feature would violate traffic laws, including “traveling straight through an intersection while in a turn-only lane, entering a stop sign-controlled intersection without coming to a complete stop, or proceeding into an intersection during a steady yellow traffic signal without due caution.” And NHTSA and the National Transportation Safety Board have been investigating crashes involving Tesla vehicles using the various driver assist features, including a series of crashes into emergency vehicles on the scene of other accidents. Tesla is not the only automaker offering driver assist features marketed as “self-driving.” And it is not the only one to run into safety problems. Recently General Motors’ Cruise unit suspended its driverless taxi service nationwide after California authorities suspended its ability to operate the system there after an accident. But, because it markets the names Autopilot and Full Self Driving, Tesla has made a greater emphasis than competitors on self-driving. It charges buyers $6,000 for cars with what it calls “enhanced Autopilot.” and $12,000 for the FSD feature. Many who paid extra for those features have told CNN they think the features are not worth the extra money. But while the features have found support among other owners, the reports of serious accidents and deaths by police and safety regulators could hurt Tesla’s efforts to market the cars and their expensive features. Autopilot’s importance to Tesla Tesla is already the most valuable automaker in the world, by far, despite having a fraction of the sales of many established automakers such as Toyota, Volkswagen, General Motors, Ford and Stellantis. Investors are betting on projections of future sales growth as well as the value of its software in making those stock valuations. CEO Elon Musk has said the company’s investment in artificial intelligence and its use in both self-driving vehicles as well as its plans for humanoid robots are a key to its current and future value. “In the long term, I think, has the potential to make Tesla the most valuable company in the world by far,” Musk said in October on a call with Wall Street analysts. “If you have fully autonomous cars at scale and fully autonomous humanoid robots that are truly useful, it’s not clear what the limit is.” Tesla’s stock fell slightly Wednesday. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/13/tech/tesla-recall-autopilot/index.html Qui il Safety Call Report: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/RCLRPT-23V838-8276.PDF

1 0

EU updates product liability regime to include software, Artificial Intelligence
by Daniela Tafani Dec. 14, 2023

Dec. 14, 2023

EU updates product liability regime to include software, Artificial Intelligence By Luca Bertuzzi | EU policymakers reached a political agreement on Thursday (14 December) on legislation to bring the bloc’s product liability regime in line with technological developments, notably covering digital products like software, which includes Artificial Intelligence. The Product Liability Directive (PLD) provides people who have suffered material damage from a defective product with the legal basis to sue the relevant economic operators and seek compensation. The product manufacturers will be liable for defectiveness resulting from a component under its control, which might be tangible, intangible, or a related service, like the traffic data of a navigation system. Defectiveness A product is deemed defective when it does not provide the safety a person is entitled to expect based on the reasonable foreseeable use, legal requirements, and the specific needs of the group of users for whom the product is intended. One of the elements considered when assessing defectiveness is the capacity of the product to continue to learn and acquire new features or knowledge; wording meant to cover Artificial Intelligence technology based on machine learning techniques. Damages Under the PLD, material damage includes death, personal injury, psychological harm, and destruction of property. At the same time, national liability regimes might still regulate compensation for non-material damages, such as those resulting from discrimination. The concept of damage also includes the loss or corruption of data that is not used exclusively for professional purposes. The European Parliament suggested introducing a threshold for the value of the data to qualify as a material loss, but this idea was rejected in the talks with the Council. Disclosure of evidence The PLD introduces the possibility for claimants who have presented sufficient evidence to request that a national court mandates the defendant disclose the evidence at its disposal as long as necessary and proportionate. Conversely, the Parliament proposed allowing the defendant to ask for the disclosure of evidence at the disposal of the claimant under the same conditions. The disclosing party might request the national court to take the necessary measures to protect the confidentiality of disclosed information including trade secrets. Burden of proof Claimants must prove the product’s defectiveness, the damage suffered, and the causal link between the two. However, under certain conditions, the defectiveness of the product will be assumed, and it will be on the defendant to disprove it. The conditions include cases where the defendant fails to disclose relevant evidence, the claimant demonstrates that the product does not comply with mandatory product safety requirements, or an obvious malfunction causes the damage. The defectiveness is also presumed in cases where the claimant faces excessive difficulties due to technical or scientific complexity to prove the defectiveness of the product or the causal link, or the claimant proves that it is likely that the product is defective or that there is a causal link. Open source software The Directive will not apply to free and open-source software developed or supplied outside a commercial activity. The liability rules apply when the software is supplied in exchange for a price or personal data used for anything other than improving the software’s security or compatibility. Compensation fund The European Parliament included the possibility of EU countries using existing or new national sectorial compensation schemes for victims of defective products who fail to obtain compensation because the economic operator is insolvent or no longer exists. The text specifies that the member states should preferably avoid funding the schemes with public money. Liability exemption The Parliament pushed a liability exemption for manufacturers of software components to a defective product that were micro or small enterprises when they placed that software in the market, provided that another economic operator is liable. However, this measure was left for contractual arrangements between the small company and the other party. Right of recourse Parliamentarians included the principle that whenever more than one economic operator is deemed liable for the same damage and is ordered to pay compensation, each one will have the right of recourse against the others. Risk development The Council added the possibility for EU countries to maintain existing measures in their legal systems that make economic operators liable even if they can prove that they could not know the product’s defectiveness based on the state of scientific and technical knowledge. Limitation periods Claimants will have three years to initiate proceedings following the damage. The right for an injured person to seek compensation under this directive expires after ten years, except for latent injuries that are slow to manifest, for which the timeframe is 25 years. Timeline The PLD will apply to all products placed on the EU market 24 months after it enters into force. EU countries will have until then to transpose the directive into national law. [Edited by Zoran Radosavljevic] L'articolo è in questo luogo occhiuto: https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/eu-updates-product-liability-…

1 0

Dropbox spooks users by sending data to OpenAI for AI search features
by Daniela Tafani Dec. 13, 2023

Dec. 13, 2023

Dropbox spooks users by sending data to OpenAI for AI search features Feature turned on by default bothers users who like to keep their files private On Wednesday, news quickly spread on social media about a new enabled-by-default Dropbox setting that shares your Dropbox data with OpenAI for an experimental AI-powered search feature. Dropbox says that user data shared with third-party AI partners isn't used to train AI models and is deleted within 30 days. Even with assurances of data privacy laid out by Dropbox on an AI privacy FAQ page, the discovery that the setting had been enabled by default upset some Dropbox users. The setting was first noticed by writer Winifred Burton, who shared information about the Third-party AI setting through Bluesky on Tuesday, and frequent AI critic Karla Ortiz shared more information about it on X. Ortiz expressed worries that the data might be trained secretly without consent. In its FAQ, Dropbox contradicts this claim, saying, "We won’t let our third-party partners train their models on our user data without consent." Either way, communication about the change could have been clearer. AI researcher Simon Willison wrote, "Great example here of how careful companies need to be in clearly communicating what's going on with AI access to personal data." So why would Dropbox send user files to OpenAI anyway? In July, the company announced an AI-powered feature called Dash that allows AI models to perform universal searches across platforms like Google Workspace and Microsoft Outlook. According to the Dropbox privacy FAQ, the third-party AI opt-out setting is part of the "Dropbox AI alpha," which is a conversational interface for exploring file contents that involves chatting with a ChatGPT-style bot using an "Ask something about this file" feature. To make it work, an AI language model similar to the one that powers ChatGPT (like GPT-4) needs access to your files. According to the FAQ, the third-party AI toggle in your account settings is turned on by default if "you or your team" are participating in the Dropbox AI alpha. Still, multiple Ars Technica staff who had no knowledge of the Dropbox AI alpha found the setting enabled by default when they checked. Right now, the only third-party AI provider for Dropbox is OpenAI, writes Dropbox in the FAQ. "Open AI is an artificial intelligence research organization that develops cutting-edge language models and advanced AI technologies. Your data is never used to train their internal models, and is deleted from OpenAI’s servers within 30 days." It also says, "Only the content relevant to an explicit request or command is sent to our third-party AI partners to generate an answer, summary, or transcript." Disabling the feature is easy if you prefer not to share Dropbox data with OpenAI. Log into your Dropbox account on a desktop web browser, then click your profile photo > Settings > Third-party AI. This link may take you to that page more quickly. On that page, click the switch beside "Use artificial intelligence (AI) from third-party partners so you can work faster in Dropbox" to toggle it into the "Off" position. We reached out to Dropbox for comment, but it did not respond before this story was published. We will update this piece when we hear back from the company. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/12/dropbox-spooks-users…

1 0

Twenge, "Yes, it’s the phones (and social media)"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Dec. 13, 2023

Dec. 13, 2023

*Yes, it’s the phones (and social media) */How every other explanation – from lack of independence to academic pressure to the pandemic – falls short/ * *Jean M. Twenge Oct 18, 2023 * */https://jeanmtwenge.substack.com/p/yes-its-the-phones-and-social-media /* ------ Here are 13 Other Explanations For The Adolescent Mental Health Crisis. None of Them Work. */Only smartphones plus social media can explain the international collapse in the early 2010s. / Jean M. Twenge Oct 24, 2023 https://www.afterbabel.com/p/13-explanations-mental-health-crisis

3 2

Re: [nexa] AI systems? unlawful by default
by maurizio lana Dec. 13, 2023

Dec. 13, 2023

Il 13/12/23 14:05, Enrico Nardelli <nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it> ha scritto: > /This paper proposes a system of “unlawfulness by default” for AI systems, an ex-ante model where some AI developers have the burden of proof to demonstrate that their technology is not discriminatory, not manipulative, not unfair, not inaccurate, and not illegitimate in its legal bases and purposes/ > > https://brusselsprivacyhub.com/2022/06/01/brussels-privacy-hub-working-pape… > > Con un grazie a Daniela Tafani che me l'ha fatto scoprire in una sua recente presentazione questo paper del maggio 2022 è probabilmente una prima fase di riflessioni che hanno poi dato luogo a Malgieri, Gianclaudio, e Frank Pasquale. «Licensing High-Risk Artificial Intelligence: Toward Ex Ante Justification for a Disruptive Technology». /Computer Law & Security Review/ 52 (aprile 2024): 105899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105899. anche questo, se non ricordo male, segnalato qui in lista da Daniela Tafani Maurizio PS: non è pignoleria documentale, ma il senso di ricostruire i percorsi degli sviluppi di pensiero, per sottrarsi almeno un po' all'inevitabile sensazione serendipica (almeno per me) che le cose interessanti si trovano qua e là basta che uno guardi con attenzione. che è pure vero, ma questo rende difficile cogliere delle linee di sviluppo > > Ciao, Enrico ------------------------------------------------------------------------ a questo punto devo fare una confessione: come il mio amico Erri De Luca, sono un europeista estremista. Questo significa che, per me, l’Europa unita è l’unica utopia politica ragionevole che noi europei abbiamo coniato. xavier cercas, inaugurazione del salone del libro, torino 2018 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maurizio Lana Università del Piemonte Orientale Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici Piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli

2 1

AI systems? unlawful by default
by Enrico Nardelli Dec. 13, 2023

Dec. 13, 2023

/This paper proposes a system of “unlawfulness by default” for AI systems, an ex-ante model where some AI developers have the burden of proof to demonstrate that their technology is not discriminatory, not manipulative, not unfair, not inaccurate, and not illegitimate in its legal bases and purposes/ https://brusselsprivacyhub.com/2022/06/01/brussels-privacy-hub-working-pape… Con un grazie a Daniela Tafani che me l'ha fatto scoprire in una sua recente presentazione Ciao, Enrico -- -- EN https://www.hoepli.it/libro/la-rivoluzione-informatica/9788896069516.html ====================================================== Prof. Enrico Nardelli Presidente di "Informatics Europe" Direttore del Laboratorio Nazionale "Informatica e Scuola" del CINI Dipartimento di Matematica - Università di Roma "Tor Vergata" Via della Ricerca Scientifica snc - 00133 Roma home page: https://www.mat.uniroma2.it/~nardelli blog: https://link-and-think.blogspot.it/ tel: +39 06 7259.4204 fax: +39 06 7259.4699 mobile: +39 335 590.2331 e-mail: nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it online meeting: https://blue.meet.garr.it/b/enr-y7f-t0q-ont ====================================================== --

1 0

Google’s Epic Legal Defeat Threatens $200 Billion App Store Industry
by Daniela Tafani Dec. 12, 2023

Dec. 12, 2023

Google’s legal defeat at the hands of Fortnite maker Epic Games Inc. threatens to roil an app store duopoly with Apple Inc. that generates close to $200 billion a year and dictates how billions of consumers use mobile devices. The loss — handed down by a San Francisco jury on Monday — is a blow to the two companies’ business model in apps, where they charge commissions of as much as 30% to software developers who typically have few other options. Google shares were down less than 1% in New York Tuesday morning at $132.62. Epic has spent years railing against the practice and got a federal jury to agree that Alphabet Inc.’s Google unit had acted unfairly as a monopoly. The case is likely to accelerate the weakening of app store rules, which have already come under fire from regulators and lawmakers around the world. “The dominoes are going to start falling here,” Tim Sweeney, chief executive officer of Epic, said in an interview after the verdict. “The end of 30% is in sight.” Though Apple won a similar case against Epic in 2021, that ruling was made by a single judge. The nature of the Google suit — where a jury sided unanimously with Epic — let actual consumers weigh in on the world of smartphone apps. In under four hours of deliberations, they found that Google had engaged in anticompetitive conduct, harmed Epic and illegally forced its own billing system on developers. There were other significant differences between the Apple and Google trials. During the current case, Epic highlighted agreements Google reached with top game developers, including Activision Blizzard Inc. and Nintendo Co., for smaller fees. “Revenue sharing deals among Google, smartphone makers and game developers came to light during the trial,” Justin Patterson and other analysts at KeyBanc Capital Markets wrote in a note to clients. “We believe this was a key difference between the cases that contributed to Apple’s victory and Google’s loss.” In Apple’s App Store, the same 30% take rate was applied evenly, while Google was attempting to steer traffic away from rival app stores on Android, analysts at Jefferies wrote in a note. “Meanwhile, Apple simply does not allow any rival app stores whatsoever.” The battle began in 2020, when Fortnite was kicked off the Apple and Google Play app stores because the game developer installed its own payment system. The idea was to bypass the up-to-30% revenue share that the two tech giants take from in-app purchases and subscriptions on their platforms. In response, Epic sued both companies. Google also has drawn criticism for making side deals with big developers like Spotify Technology SA where it offers lower commissions. In Monday’s decision, the jury found that Google shouldn’t require Android app developers to use its billing system for software sold through its store — and that it shouldn’t offer custom agreements to certain developers. “The immediate aftereffect is we will see a shift in the marketplace where big tech companies will have to make accommodations — whether it is more access, better terms, more options for developers — to stave off legal exposure,” said Paul Swanson, a partner at Holland & Hart who specializes in technology and antitrust law. Continua qui: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-12/google-s-epic-legal-defe…

1 0